Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 11 contain the trademark/trade name “LOGIC hp 16 nm generation”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe “a line and space (L/S) pattern having a half pitch (hp) of 16 nm or less” (per paragraph 0034 of the instant application’s specification) and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. In particular, it is unclear to the Examiner if the term “LOGIC” is a trademark or trade name. If “LOGIC” is indeed a trademark or trade name, the scope of instant claims 2 and 11 are unclear to the Examiner, as this term does not appear to be commonplace in the prior art and “a LOGIC hp 16 nm generation” does not appear to refer to a specific device or apparatus. Therefore, claims 2 and 11 of the instant application are considered to be indefinite, absent of further clarity from the Applicant. For the purposes of examining the patentability of claims 2 and 11 in view of the prior art, the Examiner will be interpreting “a LOGIC hp 16 nm generation or later” to mean “a line and space (L/S) pattern having a half pitch (hp) of 16 nm or less” (per paragraph 0034 of the instant application’s specification), and thus any prior art that discloses or suggests a half pitch of 16 nm or less for a L/S pattern will be interpreted to disclose or render obvious the invention(s) of claims 2 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 101772943 B1 (hereby referred to as KR ‘943).
The Examiner notes that all forthcoming references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are made in reference to the provided English machine translation of the KR ‘943 specification.
Regarding Claims 1 and 9, KR ‘943 discloses a mask blank for extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography and a photomask using the same. The mask blank is shown in Fig. 3 of the original KR ‘943 publication, wherein the mask blank comprises a transparent substrate (202), a multilayer reflective film (204) disposed on the transparent substrate, an absorbing film (212), and optionally a capping film (206) provided between the multilayer reflective film and the absorbing film (KR ‘943, paragraph 0032). The absorption film is composed of a material having a high extinction coefficient for the exposure light (KR ‘943, paragraph 0042). The absorption film essentially includes platinum (Pt) and is formed by including at least one metal material selected from the group of nickel (Ni), tantalum (Ta), zinc (Zn), ruthenium (Ru), rhodium (Rh), silver (Ag), indium (In), osmium (Os), iridium (Ir), and gold (Au), or is formed by further including at least one element selected from the group of oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), carbon (C), boron (B), and hydrogen (H) in addition to the at least one metal material (KR ‘943, paragraph 0043). Example 1 of KR ‘943 (see Table 1 on page 9 of the original KR ‘943 publication) shows an embodiment wherein a simple platinum (Pt) absorber layer is formed (KR ‘943, paragraph 0067-0068). KR ‘943 does not disclose a normalization value, as recited by instant claims 1 and 9. However, the instant application’s specification states that when the material of the absorber film has a refractive index in the range of 0.86 to 0.95 and an extinction coefficient in the range of 0.015 and 0.065, a material having a value of the normalized evaluation function of the absorber film of 1.015 or more can easily be obtained (see paragraph 0079 of the instant application’s specification). Furthermore, the instant application’s specification states that simple substances such as Pt have a value of the normalized evaluation function of 1.015 or more (see paragraph 0080 of the instant application’s specification). Thus, whilst KR ‘943 is silent in regards to the normalized evaluation function, the Pt absorber layer disclosed by KR ‘943, by the Applicant’s own admission, satisfies the criteria of instant claims 1 and 9. The described mask blank is used to produce a patterned photomask (KR ‘943, paragraph 0026).
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, KR ‘943 discloses that the mask blank can implement a fine pattern of 14 nm or less, particularly 10 nm or less, by using 13.5 nm EUV light as the exposure light (KR ‘943, paragraph 0001 and 0052).
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, KR ‘943 discloses that the platinum absorber layer has an extinction coefficient value of 0.0600 at an exposure wavelength of 13.5 nm (KR ‘943, paragraph 0044). KR ‘943 is silent in regards to the refractive index of the platinum absorber layer. However, the instant application states that a simple platinum film (which is what is used by KR ‘943 as the absorber layer), has a refractive index of 0.889 (see paragraph 0164 and any of Fig. 3-11 of the instant application’s specification). Therefore, it would be expected that the absorber layer disclosed by KR ‘943 has a refractive index between 0.86 and 0.95 for EUV light having a wavelength of 13.5 nm.
Regarding Claims 6, 15, and 19, KR ‘943 discloses an absorber film comprising platinum (Pt) (KR ‘943, paragraph 0016; see also Example 1 in Table 1 on page 9 of the original KR ‘943 publication).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, KR ‘943 discloses that a capping layer may be disposed between the reflective multilayer film and the absorber film (KR ‘943, paragraph 0032 and 0037). The capping film may be composed of ruthenium or a ruthenium compound (KR ‘943, paragraph 0038).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7, 13-14, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101772943 B1 (hereby referred to as KR ‘943).
Regarding Claims 4-5, 7, 13-14, 16, 18, and 20, KR ‘943 discloses an absorber film comprising platinum (Pt) (KR ‘943, paragraph 0016). KR ‘943 further discloses that the absorber film may comprise additional materials, such as nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn), ruthenium (Ru), rhodium (Rh), silver (Ag), indium (In), osmium (Os), iridium (Ir), and gold (Au) to further increase the extinction coefficient value of the absorber film (KR ‘943, paragraph 0045). The ratio of the metal elements compared to platinum may be between 95:5 to 5:95 (based on atomic%) (KR ‘943, paragraph 0045). In addition, light elements such as oxygen (O), nitrogen (N), boron (B), hydrogen (H) and carbon (C) may be included in the absorber film (KR ‘943, paragraph 0043).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to produce an absorber layer comprising platinum in addition to one or more of the elemental species recited by instant claims 4-5, 7, 13-14, 16, 18, and 20, as suggested by KR ‘943, because the inclusion of the additional species, such as iridium, ruthenium, and/or gold, yields an absorber film having a higher extinction coefficient, thereby allowing the thickness of the absorber film to be reduced (KR ‘943, paragraph 0045). As the ratio of the metallic species can be within a broad range (see KR ‘943, paragraph 0045), one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to routinely optimize the metal alloy content to achieve a desired optical property, such as extinction coefficient, as well as a desired absorber layer thickness. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101772943 B1 (hereby referred to as KR ‘943) in view of US 20040196579 A1 (hereby referred to as Shoki).
Regarding Claim 10, KR ‘943 discloses a photomask obtained from the mask blank according to instant claim 9, as discussed above. However, KR ‘943 is silent in regards to a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device using the photomask.
Shoki teaches a method of producing a reflective mask and a method of producing a semiconductor device. The mask comprises a reflective multilayer film, a buffer layer, and an absorber layer successively formed on a substrate (Shoki, paragraph 0042 and Fig. 1A). This is analogous to the structure described by KR ‘943 (in the embodiment wherein a capping layer is disposed between the multilayer reflective film and the absorber film). Shoki further teaches a method of transferring a pattern by EUV light to a semiconductor substrate (Shoki, paragraph 0103). The method involves setting the reflective mask in a pattern transfer apparatus which comprises an EUV wavelength exposure light source (Shoki, paragraph 0104). The exposure light exposes a transfer pattern onto a resist layer formed on a semiconductor silicon wafer (Shoki, paragraph 0106).
KR ‘943 and Shoki are analogous art because both references pertain to reflective mask blanks and reflective photomasks. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to use the reflective mask disclosed by KR ‘943 as the transfer mask in the method of manufacturing a semiconductor device taught by Shoki because the photomask disclosed by KR ‘943 can utilize thinner absorber layers, which reduces the shadow effect (KR ‘943, paragraph 0044), thereby allowing for better pattern transfer (KR ‘943, paragraph 0007) and enabling finer pattern sizes (KR ‘943, paragraph 0008-0011 and 0052).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYSON D COSGROVE whose telephone number is (571)272-2153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-18:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Huff can be reached at (571)272-1385. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAYSON D COSGROVE/Examiner, Art Unit 1737 /JONATHAN JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1734